Discussions

LSAT

New post

328 posts in the last 30 days

I thought I diagrammed this correctly, but I can't figure out how E is "properly concluded" or must be true.

Here is my diagram:

Explanation--->Must Distinguish from justification

Human action--->potentially has an explanation-->Can give an accurate description of the causes of the action (I don't think you can link these up to the first sentence)

Action justified--->person performing has sufficient reason to act

Action justified SOME justification forms no part of the explanation (These you can link together).

Generally, rational--->justification/reasons form an essential part of the explanation

What I was looking for: Since the only thing I could link up were those two middle statements, I thought the answer was going to be Person performing has sufficient reason to act SOME justification forms no part of the explanation. This isn't an answer choice though.

Answer A: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer B: This isn't in any of my chains.

Answer C: I ended up picking this one even though I didn't see any support/I had eliminated all of the other answer choices. It was the "closest" to what what I was looking for, but it still wasn't in any of my chains. Explanation isn't part of the linked up middle statements.

Answer D: Discovered? Totally irrelevant idea.

Answer E: This is the answer choice, but where is the support? The only time "cause" is mentioned is in the second conditional statement. But even then, it is only talking about giving a "description of the cause." Rationality does imply reasons forming an essential part of the explanation (last conditional statement), but why must they be causes? Shouldn't this answer choice be "If any human actions are rational, then the reasons must be given an accurate description of the causes of the action?" I don't see how this is the same thing as what answer choice E states.

0

I always have a difficult time answering these kinds of questions because

A: I'm not sure how to graph these kinds of questions, and

B: The clock is ticking down, so I wouldn't have time to graph anyway.

The assumption is obvious in both questions, it's just that when I get to eliminating all but 2 answer choices, I often pick the falsely negated AC. Is there a way I can improve my ability to spot the incorrect answer in this situation without spending 3+ minutes graphing? Any helpful tips/techniques? Thank you very much!

0

Hello I have a question regarding the method of identifying an assumption. This is a strengthening question.

Context: Therapeutic intervention before the occurrence of mental disorders can mitigate factors known as major contributor to them.

Premise: A much more comprehensive research program is necessary to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures.

Conclusion: In order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.

In order to find an assumption, I tried to see the gap between the premise and conclusion and found one gap that increase in funding for the research could lead to a much more comprehensive research program. With this in mind, I went to AC. But I could not find an answer that matches the assumption I drew. In the second shot of POE, through (C) I found that the author is assuming that by saying that the intervention research is cost effective the author is making an assumption that the research program is inexpensive compared to long-term treatment.

My question is, how come do I find the assumption that the right answer actually requires if that assumption cannot be drawn from the gap between the premise and the conclusion? Here, the claim that the research program is cost-effective seems to have nothing to do with the premise.

This question is part of CC.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-04/

Thank you.

0

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.

Conclusion:

The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.

B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.

C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.

D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.

E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/

0

Hello 7Sagers,

I’m going over my last PT— 65– and in section 1 Q 16, there’s a sufficient assumption question with a bi-conditional premise. I understand it now, but it was a major time sink on the PT because I froze up. Can anyone think of other questions like this one? It seems cookie-cutter, so I’d like to practice a little more, and it’s too specific to filter in the Question Bank.

Thanks!

0

Here is my analysis of the answer choices. Grateful for commenting on my thoughts, please! Thank you!

(A): Both disagreed. Cynthia - the reason to be funded by Gov is to further theoretical knowledge not unforeseen practical applications. Luis - the "expected" to yield practical applications in the stimulus is more definite that "may have unforeseen.." in AC.

(B): Luis disagrees; Cynthia - not known because we don't know what project does she think the Gov should not fund. In the stimulus, we only know Cynthia would agree that the government should fund researches that further the theoretical knowledge, but that does not mean the Gov should not fund projects that have practical application.

(C): Luis - not known because the only thing we know from stimulus is "Gov fund projects --> research that is expected to yield practical applications" (ie. every gov funded research should have practical application), but that does not mean that every research that has practical application should be funded by Gov. As for Cynthia, I am confused because I am not sure if "research project in theoretical science" in AC is equivalent to "research project seeks to further theoretical knowledge of nature" in the stimulus. But in either way, the AC should be eliminated.

(D) Not known because we don't know if the new technologies will help further theoretical knowledge of nature or yield practical applications

(E) Cynthia agrees and Luis disagrees.

Are my interpretations correct?

Thanks!

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-14/

Admin edit: title and link

0

My problem on this Q is that I can exclude the other four wrong answer choices, but I can't find the right answer choice right either.

Here is my thought:

The premise: no free market economy -> the maximum total utility is not assured;

The conclusion: a country is not trying to bring about a free market economy -> the country is not acting in the way most likely to bring about the maximum total utility.

The right answer choice: the argument wrongly presumes that trying to bring about a condition that will assure the achievement of an end -> the way most likely to achieve that end.

However, if I put this presumption back to the argument, what is negated in the argument is the sufficient condition here ( to assure the achievement of an end is not satisfied ). This negation doesn't get to the argument's conclusion, which is the negation of the necessary condition in the answer choice ( not the way most likely to achieve that end). So I feel the right answer choice should be like "wrongly presumes that the way most likely to achieve max utility -> trying to bring about a condition that will ensure its achievement."

Could anyone give some light?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-4-question-23/

0

This isn't a question so much as an admission of idiocy that to date I haven't been able to break. I read question stem and rules too fast and often assume something incorrectly. My panic over time constraint is a total psychological mind f***. Notwithstanding knowing that this is my issue, I continue to fall prey to this anxiety. Maybe posting this publicly will be like a "first step" in my rehabilitation ;)

0

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-32-section-4-question-17/

I still don't understand why D is wrong and E is the right answer.

I don't see why E is related to widespread use part. The reason why I chose D is "taking larger-than-prescribed doses" and "be fatal" part.

Can "taking larger-than-prescribed doses" be "widespread use" and "be fatal" be "could be dangerous" which the stimulus says?

Can anyone enlighten me why D is wrong and E is right?

Thanks!

0
User Avatar
•

Thursday, Oct 22, 2015

yousefhosny490

PT22 S2 Q08

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*CTX:* Local agricultural official gave fruit growers of District 10 a new pesticide that they applied for three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticides they had used before.

*Premise(s):* during the three years, the proportion of pears lost to insects was significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Conclusion:* based on the results, the official concluded that the new pesticide was more effective than the old pesticide, at least in the short term. In limiting the loss of certain fruit to insects.

*What I am looking for:* Just looking for answer choices that weaken the argument. Maybe an alternative explanation as to why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer A:* Yes, this is the right answer. This is irrelevant and does not weaken the argument. There were less fruit being produced because the number of mature trees has declined of the past 8 years. Who cares. The argument is talking about the “proportion of pears lost to insects.” So, it doesn’t matter how many pears we started with, it’s how many of those that were lost to insects with the new pesticide.

*Answer B:* Not the right answer. This weakens the argument. Insect abatement programs were used in the last 5 years, and were successful. That explains why the pears lost to insects were significantly less than it had been during the previous three years period.

*Answer C:* Not the right answer. Over the past 5 years, the birds that prey on the insects that feed on the pears have spent more time in the district 10 region. Weakens.

*Answer D:* Not the right answer. Insects in district 10 that infest pear trees are water breeders, and access to water for them is shrinking. This means the insects did not get to the pear trees. Weakens.

*Answer E:* Not the right answer. It is saying the old pesticide is still in effect after it has stopped being used, so it may not be the new pesticide that is credited with eliminating many pear eating insects. Weakens.

0

I don't see how D seriously undermines the hypothesis. How do we know anything about the death of diatoms? For this answer to work, you have to assume that Antarctic diatoms die near Antarctica (why can't they move or float away, or the death shells float away?) Lastly, don't you have to assume that the sediment left by the death shells would be indicative of a population increase? Aren't life and death two totally different ideas?. How are we supposed to know that these are OK assumptions?

Take for instance A (just for the sake of argument, I understand that A is incorrect). I think A would work if you assume diatoms of today are similar to diatoms during the ice age. You would also need to assume that the "unusually large amounts of ferrous material" that does not exist today would not promote a further increase in their population today. How are these assumptions less reasonable than the ones needed for D to be correct?

0

Hello 7sage admin,

Could you guys put a target time on the RC passages? In the LGs, the target time is helpful, and I think that a target time for the RC passages would be super helpful, especially since the timing in RC feels much more unpredictable than the other sections. Obviously, everyone's going to be a little different based on background etc, but a ballpark figure would be awesome. Really loving the curriculum, keep up the good work!

0
User Avatar
•

Thursday, Oct 12, 2017

mcglazo260

Retaking Dec

So I got my score and ultimately got a 157. I'm bummed but...what can you do? I bought the 7sage starter and will be playing catch up on studying today. Does anyone have any tips? I have a goal of high 160's.

0

Hello all,

I was reviewing PT 77 S2 Q18 (link below) and was having a bit of trouble clarifying my thinking on it.

If an argument "fails to exclude" X, that means it does not explicitly rule out X, correct? This is different than "presumes" or "takes for granted" X where X would be an assumption the argument makes, right?

Am I thinking about this correctly?

Thanks for any help!

Link:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-18/

0

Hi there. I received my Sept LSAT score (167) last night and scored substantially lower than my prep-tests (avg173). I knew walking out of the test that my score would be lower as I screwed up the timing on my RC section pretty substantially and ended up rushing through the last passage, barely reading and answering the questions. My top school is NYU -- I was planning on applying ED and for the RTK scholarship. I am going to retake in December, but this eliminates the opportunity to apply ED and for the RTK scholarship ( I think?).

I guess I'm wondering if there are any other options-- is there any point in applying ED with my Sept. LSAT score and allowing my December score to come in later? Or is it possible to apply to the RTK scholarship with a Dec LSAT score (the application is technically due Jan 1st. but Dec. LSAT score release date is Jan 4th).

Applying as early as possible is something that has been emphasized so much by advisors that I guess I'm feeling apprehensive about a December retake, but I am confident that I can raise my score by at least 3 pts.

Any Advice would be much appreciated.

0

I find myself getting stuck on a lot of weaken/strengthen questions in RC because I just don't know how to approach it. In LR I always tell myself to look for assumptions and overlooked possibilities, and in general think of making the premises less supportive or stronger support for the conclusion, and also staying away from trap answers that independently attack the conclusion or deny premises. However, in RC there's not really clear premises or reasoning so I find it hard to wrap my head around how we're supposed to then strengthen or weaken an author's argument, and whether we should consider ACs that seem to independently go against their position or give an independent reason to strengthen it.

Any suggestions on how to think about these questions?

0

When we violate a principle, are we essentially negating that principle?

PRINCIPLE: If you intentionally misrepresent someone's beliefs, then you do so in the interest of another person.

VIOLATION: If you intentionally misrepresent someone's beliefs, then you DO NOT do so in the interest of another person.

I am basing my example off of LSAT PT 140 S1Q19.

0

Confirm action

Are you sure?